Finance Reform, Thought Doomed, Gets Airing in Ill.

School-finance reform, tagged as an impossible dream for Illinois
lawmakers this year, is getting an extended run in the
Republican-dominated legislature.

The idea seemed destined for an early curtain when it was first
proposed by Gov. Jim Edgar last month. But the same election-year
pressures that made a $1.9 billion tax increase hard to swallow have
also made it difficult for legislators to dismiss altogether the notion
of reworking the way the state distributes money for education.

Miffed that the Republican governor had put them in the
uncomfortable position of rejecting a more equitable school-funding
system, GOP leaders of the House and Senate have floated a compromise
version. And though in the long run it may not pass and may not satisfy
the backers of finance reform, lawmakers will at least be able to tell
voters they tried.

"This plan doesn't do good that helps one part of the state at the
expense of another," said Lee A. Daniels, the House speaker, who
drafted a less expensive and less expansive school-finance bill. "Every
school district comes out a winner."

Such talk is much more palatable than Mr. Edgar's proposal, which
grew from the recommendations of a task force.

The Illinois school-finance system allows some of the biggest
disparities of any state in the nation. Because of variations in local
property wealth and the system's reliance on property taxes, per-pupil
funding in the state ranges from about $3,000 to $15,000.

Under the governor's plan, which would require amending the state
constitution, the state would increase taxes by $1.9 billion per year.
Of that, $1.5 billion would simply be a shift in revenue from
localities to the state, via an increase in the state income tax to
offset $1.5 billion in property-tax relief.

The remaining $400 million would be new money, pumped into the
finance system in an effort to raise per-pupil funding in all districts
to at least $4,225. (See Education Week, April 3, 1996.)

The shift away from property taxes would hamper school spending in
the affluent Chicago suburbs that are a Republican stronghold. Mr.
Daniels' plan, however, attempts to keep the issue alive without
sending suburban constituents into a panic.

No New Taxes

Speaker Daniels' bill carries a $500 million price tag and requires
no tax increase. It would set aside grants of about $250 per pupil that
districts could spend on school technology and classroom programs or
use to replace local property taxes. The bill also would require a high
school exit exam and extra testing of 3rd and 6th graders.

It is a far cry from Mr. Edgar's call for a constitutional amendment
that would require the state to pay at least half the cost of local
schools. The state now picks up almost one-third of the total cost.

Not surprisingly, lawmakers have become more interested in school
finance now that Mr. Daniels' "Quality First" plan is on the table. The
bill easily passed the House education committee, and won approval in
the full House on a 69-46 vote.

James "Pate" Philip, the Senate president, said last week that the
bill might become the basis for a compromise with Mr. Edgar. He added,
however, that leaders in the Senate favor a less expensive version of
the bill than even Mr. Daniels proposed.

Before he ever introduced the finance plan, Gov. Edgar had requested
$220 million in new funding for schools.

Mr. Daniels' plan has run into opposition from a variety of state
interest groups, which claim that paying for the education grants would
force lawmakers to make substantial cuts in other state programs.
Officials in the governor's office also have some reservations about
the plan, arguing that it does nothing to increase equity among the
state's school districts.

Observers, meanwhile, think all of the fuss may be for naught. The
legislature is scheduled to adjourn May 22. Between now and then
lawmakers must take final action on the state budget, which leaves
little time for give-and-take on a school-finance bill.

Web Only

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.